Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 438.41 (2026)
Criminal usury; definition; penalty.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
CRIMINAL USURY
Act 259 of 1968
438.41 Criminal usury; definition; penalty.
Sec. 1.
A person is guilty of criminal usury when, not being authorized or permitted by law to do so, he knowingly charges, takes or receives any money or other property as interest on the loan or forbearance of any money or other property, at a rate exceeding 25% at simple interest per annum or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period. Any person guilty of criminal usury may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed 5 years or fined not more than $10,000.00, or both.
History: 1968, Act 259, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: People v. Lee, 526 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. 1994).
People v. Lee, 526 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. 1994). “In this case, we are called upon to determine whether there is probable cause to find that a loan occurred within the meaning of the usury statute, MCL 438.41; MSA 19.15(51), where a person purchases a used watch and grants the seller an option to later repurchase the watch at a…”
Allen-Morris v. Nicholas Fin., Inc. (In re Allen-Morris), 523 B.R. 532 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “Count I of the complaint seeks to disallow Nicholas Financial’s proof of claim under Michigan’s “wrongful-conduct rule” because the sale of the Jeep violated Michigan’s criminal usury statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 438.41 , and the Michigan Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (MVSFA).”
Lawsuit Fin., LLC v. Curry, 683 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 438.41, which sets the criminal usury rate at twenty-five percent a year.”
Lawsuit Fin., LLC v. Curry, 261 Mich. App. 579 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “31, which establishes a maximum legal interest rate of seven percent, and MCL 438.41, which sets the criminal usury rate at twenty-five percent a year.”
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 237 B.R. 380 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999). “31c(ll) (nonresidential mortgage over $100,000 can *408 carry any rate of interest); Mich.Comp.Laws § 438.41 (unless otherwise permitted by law, the maximum rate of interest is 25%); Mich.”
Nelson v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Indiana, Inc., 659 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “31c(4); MCL 438.41. Further, unless the loan is federally insured or guaranteed, “if the security is a single family dwelling unit,” then the prepayment penalty provisions of MCL 438.”
In re Skymark Props. Ii, LLC, 597 B.R. 363 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019). “SPE's usury argument SPE argues that the Lender is charging interest, including default interest, on its Loan that exceeds the maximum 25% rate permitted under the Michigan usury statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 438.41 . Because of this, SPE argues, the Lender is barred from…”
Soaring Pine Capital Real Est. v. Park Street Grp. Realty (Mich. 2023). “Park Street argued that Soaring Pine violated the criminal usury statute, MCL 438.41, by knowingly charging an effective interest rate exceeding 25% and therefore was barred by the wrongful-conduct rule from recovering on the loan.”
Wilkerson v. Seder, 265 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Plaintiffs contend that a private civil action may be maintained on the basis of the criminal usury statute, MCLA 438.41, 438.42; MSA 19,15(51), 19.15(52).”
Visioneering Inc. Profit Sharing Trust v. Belle River Jt. Venture, 386 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “4 We note that the criminal usury law, MCL 438.41; MSA 19.15(51), rendering felonious interest rates in excess of 25% per annum, would likely be enforceable under 29 USC 1114(b)(4).”
Perry Drug Stores, Inc v. Dep't of Treasury, 582 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “…this could be considered a “fair interest rate.” In fact, if it were interest, it would be considered criminal usury. MCL 438.41; MSA 19.15(51).”
Folands Jewelry Brokers, Inc v. City of Warren, 532 N.W.2d 920 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “In rejecting the circuit court's ruling, the Supreme Court held that no loan existed because May was under no obligation to repurchase the watch.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.